Here is another obstacle about arming teachers, liability. Insurance companies are looking at the financial cost. It's cheaper to have some kids die than to pay out huge sums of money in lawsuits. After all, it's a criminal act so they wouldn't be liable if some kids die. So they are resisting to insure schools that permit teachers that carry guns.

In early days of licensed carry here, saw some businesses I patronized throw up "no guns" signs, even though the owners were not anti-gun. In several cases, they told me their insurance carriers had insisted on it.

My typical response was along the lines of "So, what all aspects of YOUR business do you let them run for you?" Guess my delivery of that was pretty good, it worked about 90% of the time.

That tactic isn't going to work nearly as well talking to school administrators though.

Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.

Even if a legislature would force an insurance company to write it, I can't imagine how an underwriter is going to assess the potential risk, in order to even determine a proper premium to charge. This is new territory, and there's really no history to go on. Since premium is based on the severity of the risk, chances are it's going to go up.

Of course, the argument to taxpayers who don't want to pay the freight for such an increased premium is, "so, what exactly ARE your kids worth ??".

Tough one to work out. I know down here in TN, some districts are already doing it (some publicly, some quietly). Gotta wonder if the quiet ones have even told their insurance companies.

docachna wrote:Even if a legislature would force an insurance company to write it, I can't imagine how an underwriter is going to assess the potential risk, in order to even determine a proper premium to charge. This is new territory, and there's really no history to go on. Since premium is based on the severity of the risk, chances are it's going to go up.

Of course, the argument to taxpayers who don't want to pay the freight for such an increased premium is, "so, what exactly ARE your kids worth ??".

Tough one to work out. I know down here in TN, some districts are already doing it (some publicly, some quietly). Gotta wonder if the quiet ones have even told their insurance companies.

I wish I could find the link, but there is a link where someone did a study of a bunch of mass shootings, and detailed statistics (insurance types love statistics ) where it showed that whenever there was an armed defender of some kind on the scene who was able to quickly respond, the number of dead and injured was significantly less than without one. In addition, there is so far (according to Mas Ayoob) no incidents of an armed defender accidentally killing an innocent person during a mass shooting. For additional statistics, you can also look to places such as Israel.

Brian D. wrote:In early days of licensed carry here, saw some businesses I patronized throw up "no guns" signs, even though the owners were not anti-gun. In several cases, they told me their insurance carriers had insisted on it.

My typical response was along the lines of "So, what all aspects of YOUR business do you let them run for you?" Guess my delivery of that was pretty good, it worked about 90% of the time.

That tactic isn't going to work nearly as well talking to school administrators though.

That really was and is bogus in Ohio...If I remember correctly the statute specifically states you cannot sue an establishment for either posting or not posting a no-guns sign if anything happens, accidental or not.

God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,the courage to change the things I canand the Wisdom to know the difference.

The link I mentioned in a previous reply, that mentioned how the casualty count is decreased if an armed good guy/gal is present at the scene of a mass shooting, I found it. One of the problems with the information though is it only mentions the number of people shot. I've read about some mass shootings where the shooter shot victims multiple times, or initially wounded them, walked up to them as they were laying on the ground, and finishing them off. They had time to do this simply because no one was shooting back at them. Or the people who were wounded died waiting on EMS because they couldn't go in because the shooter wasn't neutralized. I'm betting that if the dead/wounded number was taken into account as well, it would make having an armed response on scene even more important.